Login

SeldomRite · 03-18-2018, 01:51 PM

(03-18-2018, 11:16 AM)Bullseye Wrote: You indicated at the end of paragraph #1 that "all we can do is look at what the results were." I agree completely. I think there are two objective results based standards we should examine in evaluating these trades down, based upon the context of the discussion.

Did the team trading down get a deal equal to or better than the Colts deal yesterday? The whole purpose of the thread was to address the lament that the Jaguars don't get deals like this. If the team trading down did not get a comparable deal, the trade down can't be in any way persuasive.

The second line of inquiry should be whether the teams trading down, assuming they got comparable deals to the Colts deal yesterday, got any further than the Jaguars in the time since the trade. To quote Herm Edwards, "Hello?!? You play to win the game!"

With these two objective criteria established, let me address your points.

1. First, the 2014 NFL draft had only two trades in the top ten of that draft, not three. Cleveland traded from 4 to Buffalo's pick at 9. Then Cleveland traded back up to 8 with Minnesota. http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/0ap200000...-the-moves. Now in looking at the terms of the Cleveland-Buffalo trade, to move down 5 spots and switch places with Buffalo, the Bills gave the Browns a 2015 first round pick and a 2015 4th round pick. Because the trade involved a future first round pick and a 4th, let's call it comparable to the Colts deal from yesterday. The second line of inquiry is whether, in the time since this trade, have the Browns advanced any further than the Jaguars? Since that 2014 trade down, the Browns have finished 7-9, 3-13, 1-15, and 0-16. While the three seasons between 2014 and 2016 haven't exactly been smashing successes for the Jaguars, last year saw the Jaguars reach the AFC championship game, being only 2:37 away from reaching the Super Bowl. By the time the players involved from that trade reached their prime years, the Browns and Jaguars could not be further apart. Applying this standard to the second trade, Minnesota only got a 5th round pick by moving down one spot with Cleveland, so that trade fails the first criteria.

2. Since, by your own admission, there were no trades at the top of the 2015 draft, there's not much in the way of examining the objective, results based criteria. However, since the Jaguars pick at #3 put them below the much desired top two picks, one could surmise there was no team willing to offer the Jaguars a deal comparable to or better than the Colts deal yesterday. Viewed slightly differently, since that draft had two potential franchise signal callers in Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota, we could reasonably assume there had to have been offers for those picks too, ostensibly more lucrative than whatever offers we may have had for pick 3, and perhaps equal to or better than the Colts deal down yesterday. But note neither Tampa nor Tennessee traded down from those picks despite the offers they could have had. Is it possible, then, to conclude there are circumstances under which accepting a trade down, even a very lucrative offer, is not advisable? Keep reading.

3. In 2016, the Browns traded down from #2 overall with Philadelphia to #8 overall. In exchange for the 2nd overall pick and a 4th rounder thrown in, the Browns received the #8 overall pick, a 2016 3rd round pick, a 2016 4th round pick, a 2017 first round pick, and a 2018 2nd round pick. Considering the picks the Browns received included a future first and a future second, we'll say they got a better deal than the Colts received yesterday. The Browns traded back again from #8 to #15, and got a 2016 3rd round pick and a 2017 second round pick for their trouble. That trade was not comparable to what the Colts received. But as to the 2nd objective criteria, I refer back to the bottom of my answer to paragraph 1. The tacks also traded down in the first round in 2016. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...rom-titans Given the consideration received, you could say that deal too was comparable to what the Colts received yesterday. But based on the second criteria, the titans did not advance further than the Jaguars did since that trade was made. While the tacks did have two 9-7 seasons and reached the playoffs in 2017 while the Jaguars only had one winning season, the Jaguars did pass the tacks during that time, winning a division title and reaching the AFC championship game. The tacks have not advanced any further than the Jaguars since that trade. Back to my closing question from 2. You have acknowledged you don't blame Caldwell for standing pat when Ramsey is on the board. While I could easily stop the examination here, let's look at Cleveland, who traded down twice. They missed out on QB Carson Wentz and T Jack Conklin. What are their two biggest offensive holes? QB and T. What has been their record since making those two trades down? 1-31. Moral of the story? Sometimes it's best NOT to trade down even if you receive lucrative deals to do so.

4. Yes, there was a top 10 trade after the Jaguars picked in 2017. Buffalo traded the #10 overall pick to Kansas City, in exchange for the 25th overall pick, a 2017 3rd round pick, and a 2018 first round pick. Considering the Colts got a 1 and 3 second round picks, including 2 this year, for moving down three spots, you could argue the Colts trade down was more lucrative than what the Bills got for moving down 15 last year, but for the purposes of this discussion, we'll call the trades a push. Since the trade, have the Bills advanced further than the Jaguars? No. In fact, the Jaguars knocked the Bills out of the playoffs this year.

Looking objectively, the teams that traded down and got deals comparable to what the Colts got went no further than the Jaguars did, who accomplished that without trading down from their top 5 draft positions at all.

I don't think looking at overall team success is the best way to gauge trade success. I think the best way to gauge trade success is to look at how many players drafted closely after the spot that was traded back to went on to have success. There's a lot of reasons teams can be bad, consistently picking bad players regardless of draft position is one of them. The point I make regarding trades is that if you can get more value out of a trade than you'll get by sticking where you are and taking a guy that isn't better than the next x number of guys in the draft order then you should make the trade, and the Aaron Donald/ODB draft was an excellent example of it. Bortles might still turn out to be good QB, but he sure doesn't look like he's going to be an elite QB at this point in his career, and Caldwell is supposed to be getting paid millions to know who is going to be great and who is going to be marginal.

(03-18-2018, 11:40 AM)nate Wrote: The concept of "the draft is all about value" is a fantasy-type concept. You get good players that fit on your team that make a difference.

The above concept is one built on the BAP theory which is also a fantasy that hasn't been employed by teams realistically since FA and the cap began.

Our running game and concept for it changed completely with the LF pick, and it worked astonishingly well. That, as a concept, is one that worked and resulted in the playoff run we enjoyed.

You saw from 2012-2016 our leading rusher having 800 yards or less or like 45 yards a game. There is more to it than assigning some random fantasy "value" number.

I appreciate an attempt at an analytical way of looking at it, but there is a lot more to it.

It's no surprise that a good ol' boys network has continued to run things like the good ol' boys network always has, but that doesn't mean it's actually the correct way to do it.

As for the stuff about the running game, the team arguably had more success in the games Fournette didn't play in, so basing your entire argument on the idea that Fournette was the difference isn't an unassailable position.